I see a lot of conversation has occured since this post, however I would like to comment on this link provided.

harbinger77, you really didn't do yourself any favors by posting this link. I skimmed through it and counted several points which have been debunked. I would guess that the entire link you posted is false. The problem with anti-evolutionists is they don't understand evolution.

Why don't you try reading about evolution and attempt to understand it for yourself before you start reading anti-evolution lies? After all, if evolution is clearly false then understanding it and proving that it is false should be very easy. I suspect that you are afraid. You are afraid that you will fail and conclude that evolution is indeed a valid observation of how nature works. So you rely on others to support your pre-existing perspective.

Even complex and convincing falsehoods can be proven false. This is why the link you posted fails in accomplishing anything, it is one big complex and convincing falsehood which has been proven false repeatedly for the last several decades.

fair enough. As you have skimmed through and know at least some of the points and that they have been proven false. Would you care to post said "lie" so that I'll know the point(s) you're talking about, and a link that may provide the information that debunks it?

I appreciate that you are interested in discussion.

There are two fronts in truly understand how absurd the link you posted is.

First, as I suggested, learning about what the actual claims of evolution are, learning about what the evidence of evolution is and properly understanding it all. You’ll have to set aside any pre-existing understandings you might have (save them for later). It is difficult to understand something if you simply dismiss or ignore certain things about what you are trying to understand.

Keep in mind, everything we understand today about the theory of evolution is based on over 150 years of investigation, research, testing, verification and use of the scientific method by thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in many fields of science. All of these people have or had different backgrounds and specialized areas of expertise.

Secondly, once you understand the theory of evolution and examine the claims of anti-evolutionists you begin to see a pattern of misunderstanding and outright lies which are often repeated over and over again. These misunderstandings and outright lies are repeated so often that there are websites that have just about all the false claims from anti-evolutionists documented thoroughly and debunked equally as thorough.

In regards to any one of the specific points, I’ll just look at one lie at random.

Lie: The “Tree of Life” is falling

This section goes into horizontal gene transfer and how it is supposedly dismantling the Tree of Life. HGT has not caused the Tree of Life to fall, which makes a claim otherwise a lie. Actually what HGT is doing is uncovering new evidence which advances our understanding of the Tree of Life and rearranges it to a more accurate picture.

Here is a link to the article (http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885 ) which is actually quote mined by your original link. The article doesn’t even refute evolution, rather it supports it and only aims to form a different looking “tree of life” based on the research done by Kevin Peterson. The article also provides a reasonable counter argument to the conclusions that Peterson has arrived at, which has to do with mircroRNA losses. This is typical in science, Scientists examine evidence, propose hypothesis, predictions are made based on those hypothesis’s and then tested. Evidence and methods are examined and reviewed. HGT is a very new hypothesis within the theory of evolution.

If you were wondering, yes this claim is documented and debunked by talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html). talkorigins also has the earliest known claim related to HGT which was back in 2003 from darwinismrefuted.com. Ironically, many of the same points in your link are similar to the darwinismrefuted.com article, although I don’t believe it is a direct copy (the title is close though).